Smith v Attorney-General
[2017] NZHC 3141
•15 December 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2017-404-1609 [2017] NZHC 3141
UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
Parts 18 and 30 of the High Court Rules, the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
IN THE MATTER
of an application for judicial review and public law compensation
BETWEEN
PHILLIP JOHN SMITH Applicant
AND
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent
Hearing: 30 October 2017 Appearances:
Applicant in person
A M Powell and V McCall for RespondentJudgment:
15 December 2017
JUDGMENT OF LANG J
[on application for judicial review]
This judgment was delivered by me on 15 December 2017 at 4.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………
SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 3141 [15 December 2017]
[1] The applicant, Mr Phillip Smith, is serving a sentence of life imprisonment imposed on a charge of murder together with concurrent sentences imposed in respect of charges relating to sexual offending. He is currently housed in an area of Auckland Prison designated by the Department of Corrections (Corrections) as a high security facility. He is also being managed on a high security regime.
[2] Mr Smith is presently classified as a low-medium security prisoner. He contends this imposes a legal obligation on Corrections to house him in a low-medium security facility and manage him on a low-medium regime. He seeks judicial review of Corrections’ decision to require him to remain in a high security facility subject to a high security regime. He also challenges other decisions Corrections has made regarding his accommodation and management from when he ceased to be classified as a maximum security prisoner in June 2016.
[3] Mr Smith also seeks monetary compensation from Corrections. The parties have agreed, however, that this issue should not be considered until the Court has determined whether Corrections breached its legal and statutory obligations by housing and managing him in facilities and regimes inconsistent with his security classification.
Background
[4] Mr Smith achieved national and international notoriety in November 2014 when he failed to return to prison after being granted temporary release. The publicity about his escape occurred because Mr Smith was able to leave the country and travel to Brazil using a passport he had obtained in his original birth name. He was deported back to New Zealand on 29 November 2014, and classified as a maximum security prisoner a few days later.
[5] On 27 June 2016, Corrections downgraded Mr Smith’s classification from maximum to high security. A few days later he was moved from a maximum security
regime to a high security regime, but remained housed in the maximum security facility at Auckland Prison.
[6] On 23 December 2016, Corrections downgraded Mr Smith’s security classification further so that he was assigned a low-medium security classification. He retained that classification when it was reviewed again in June 2017. On 8 August
2017, Corrections transferred Mr Smith to the West Division of Auckland Prison. West Division, or Auckland West, is a high security facility in which prisoners are managed on a high security regime. Mr Smith understands that Corrections currently has no plans to move him to a low-medium security facility or to make him subject to a low- medium security regime.
Grounds of review
[7] Mr Smith advances two grounds in support of his application for review of
Corrections’ decisions. These can be summarised as follows:
(a) Corrections has acted illegally and in breach of its statutory obligations in failing to house Mr Smith in a facility and on a regime consistent with his present security classification.
(b)Corrections’ decisions are unfair and constitute a breach of Mr Smith’s legitimate expectation that he would be housed in a facility and on a regime consistent with that classification.
[8] In each case Mr Smith seeks a declaration that Corrections has breached his rights.
[9] Mr Smith advances his claim for monetary compensation on the basis that
Corrections has breached his right under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights
1990 (NZBORA) to be treated with humanity and with respect to the inherent dignity of his person.
The statutory regime
[10] The Corrections Act 2004 (the Act) governs the manner in which New Zealand’s penal sector is to be managed. Section 5(1) of the Act relevantly provides as follows:
5 Purpose of corrections system
(1) The purpose of the corrections system is to improve public safety and contribute to the maintenance of a just society by—
(a) ensuring that the community-based sentences, sentences of home detention and custodial sentences and related orders that are imposed by the courts and the New Zealand Parole Board are administered in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner; and
(b) providing for corrections facilities to be operated in accordance with rules set out in this Act and regulations made under this Act that are based, amongst other matters, on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; and
(c) assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community, where appropriate, and so far as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances and within the resources available, through the provision of programmes and other interventions; and
…
[11] Section 200 of the Act permits the Governor-General, by order in Council, to make regulations covering a wide range of matters. These include regulations to ensure the good management of prisons and prescribe the powers and functions of prison staff. Regulations may also be promulgated to ensure the safe custody of prisoners and to provide for their management, care, treatment, wellbeing and reintegration into the community.1 Section 202(e) and (f) provide that such regulations may also regulate the security classification of prisoners, together with the standards of accommodation to be provided to prisoners or any class of prisoner and the facilities to be provided or not provided.
[12] Section 196 of the Act provides the Chief Executive of the Department
Corrections (Corrections) with a broad power to issue guidelines and instructions to
1 Corrections Act 2004, s 200(1)(c) and (d).
prison staff. These may relate to procedures to be followed and/or standards to be met in the management of prisons.
[13] Section 47 of the Act deals with the issue of the security classification to be assigned to prisoners. It requires the Chief Executive to ensure that every prisoner serving a sentence of more than three months imprisonment is assigned a security classification reflecting the level of risk posed by the prisoner while inside or outside prison, including the risk of escape and the risk that escape would pose to the public.
[14] The Corrections Regulations 2005 prescribe how the prison system is to operate on a day to day basis. The security classification system is one of the tools used to ensure prisoners are housed and managed in a manner reflecting their level of risk to the public and other prisoners. In this context reg 44 provides:
44 Principles of security classification
(1) A prisoner should be assigned the lowest level of security classification at which the prisoner can safely and securely be managed given the assessment of the level of risk posed by a prisoner.
(2) A prisoner who has been assigned a security classification must be placed and managed within a facility and regime that is consistent with his or her security classification, to the extent that it is practicable (having regard to the availability of accommodation and other resources).
(Emphasis added)
[15] At the heart of Mr Smith’s complaint in the present proceeding is an allegation that Corrections has failed to meet its obligation under reg 44(2) to house and manage him within facilities and regimes consistent with his security classification.
Availability of judicial review
[16] For the respondent, Mr Powell traversed the authorities relating to the availability of judicial review involving a challenge to decisions made within the prison management environment. As I understood his argument, there is a distinction to be drawn in this context between decisions made as part of the day to day management of prisons and those that affect a prisoner’s legal or human rights. The
former are unlikely to be susceptible to review by the courts whilst the latter are likely to warrant scrutiny under traditional judicial review principles.
[17] I do not consider it necessary to traverse the authorities because I consider the position in the present case to be clear, at least in relation to the issue forming the basis of Mr Smith’s principal argument. He says the prison authorities have acted illegally in deciding where and how he is to be housed and managed because they have failed to comply with the mandatory requirements contained in reg 44(2). I consider that issue to be susceptible to judicial review.
Overview of the prison system in New Zealand
[18] Mr Robert Sherlock, the Deputy Director of Auckland Prison, has filed two affidavits in which he explains the operation of New Zealand’s prison system. He was also the person responsible for making decisions regarding Mr Smith, and he has explained the reasons underlying these.
[19] Mr Sherlock deposes that at present there are more than 10,000 prisoners held in 18 prisons throughout New Zealand. Neither the Act nor the regulations prescribes the categories into which prisoners may be divided for the purpose of security classification. The Chief Executive has therefore used the power under s 196 of the Act to issue guidelines and instructions to prison staff regarding that issue. In its current form the system operated by Corrections divides prisoners into five security classifications. These are:
(a) Maximum security;
(b) High security;
(c) Low-medium security;
(d) Low security; and
(e) Minimum security.
[20] A prisoner’s security classification must be assessed after a prisoner has been sentenced. It must then be reviewed every six months or earlier if the prisoner’s circumstances have changed.
[21] The only prison in which maximum security prisoners can be housed on a permanent basis is the East Division of Auckland Prison. Within that part of the prison they are housed in one of two units. This area is constructed and fenced in a manner commensurate with the level of security required to contain prisoners classified as maximum security. Maximum security prisoners are subject to the highest level of supervision, control and restriction in the prison system. This reflects the fact that a high proportion of maximum security prisoners have committed violent offences, including assaults on prison staff, or are considered escape risks.
[22] High security prisoners will generally be housed in high security rated units at one of the four major prisons in New Zealand. These are Auckland Prison, Waikeria Prison, Rimutaka Prison and Christchurch Prison. Auckland Prison comprises East Division and West Division. Although East Division is primarily used to house maximum security prisoners, the secure and tightly controlled environment that it provides is also suitable for prisoners with high security needs. It may also contain prisoners who were originally classified as maximum security but have been re- classified as high security. Those prisoners may remain in East Division whilst they are prepared for return to the mainstream prison population.
[23] Prisoners with a security classification of low-medium and below will generally be housed either in a satellite unit at one of the major prisons or in a lower security facility. West Division of Auckland Prison, or Auckland West, houses both high and low-medium security prisoners.
[24] The rehabilitative pathway assumes a prisoner will progress from a higher security classification to a lower security classification whilst serving a sentence of imprisonment. This is important, because rehabilitative programmes designed to reduce the risk a prisoner poses to the community are generally only available to prisoners with a lower security classification. Completion of such programmes may be a prerequisite before a prisoner is released on parole.
[25] Prisoners are subject to management regimes that are determined broadly in accordance with their security classification. Higher security regimes are more restrictive than lower security regimes. Mr Sherlock says the difference between maximum and high security regimes is more significant than the difference between high security and low-medium.
[26] Those prisoners on maximum and high security regimes enjoy less time out of their cells than those on lower regimes. The other principal difference between the regimes relates to the level of staff supervision and the extent to which prisoners may mix with other prisoners. There will also be differences between regimes as to the manner and extent to which prisoners have access to recreational and rehabilitative facilities. In addition, there may be differences in the manner and extent to which prisoners may have access to visitors.
Approach
[27] For the reasons that follow, I consider the first ground of review provides the only ground that is realistically available to Mr Smith.
[28] Mr Smith advances the second ground based on breach of legitimate expectation on three bases.2 All rely on the proposition that where a public authority has promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interests of good administration that it should act fairly and should implement its promise, so long as it does not
interfere with its statutory duty.3 The first step in determining such a claim is to
establish the nature of the commitment made by the public authority, whether by a promise or settled practice or policy.4 A promise or practice that is ambiguous in nature is unlikely to be treated as giving rise to a legitimate expectation in
administrative law terms.5
2 During the hearing Mr Smith also sought to advance an argument that Corrections is breaching a provision in its policy documents stating that maximum and high security prisoners must be housed separately to low-medium, low and minimum security prisoners. As Mr Powell pointed out, however, this allegation is not pleaded in the statement of claim and for that reason cannot now be considered.
3 Comptroller of Customs v Terminals (NZ) Ltd [2012] NZCA 598, [2014] 2 NZLR 137 at [121].
4 At [125].
5 At [125].
[29] The first argument relies on comments Mr Smith alleges Mr Sherlock made to him on or about 23 December 2016, shortly after he was re-classified as a low-medium security prisoner. He says Mr Sherlock told him a transfer from the maximum security facility “was envisaged within the first six months of 2017”.
[30] Two points can be made about this argument. The first is that Mr Sherlock denies he made that comment. He says that when he spoke to Mr Smith in December
2016 he told him he would be moved out of the maximum security facility but this would not occur within the next six months because there was a decision making process that needed to be undertaken. Mr Smith and Mr Sherlock are therefore fundamentally at odds regarding what was said. It is obviously not possible to determine that type of factual dispute in an application for judicial review where there has been no cross-examination.
[31] Even assuming Mr Smith’s version of the discussion is correct, however, it could not give rise to an unequivocal statement of the type necessary to give rise to a claim based on breach of legitimate expectation. Something that is “envisaged” is hardly a promise that transfer would occur. At the very least it is ambiguous. For those reasons the first argument cannot succeed.
[32] The second argument relies on Mr Smith having a legitimate expectation that Corrections would adhere to both the requirements of reg 44(2) and its own internal policy documents. Corrections’ policy documents contain a provision that largely mirrors the wording used in reg 44(2).
[33] If Mr Smith cannot establish Corrections has acted in breach of reg 44(2) this argument obviously cannot succeed. If he can, his position cannot be improved by any finding in relation to breach of legitimate expectation. The same can be said of the allegation that Corrections has acted unfairly, whatever that may mean in the present context.
[34] Mr Smith’s third argument based on breach of legitimate expectation relies on a statement in Corrections’ internal policy documents that low-medium prisoners “should be kept separate” from high security prisoners. He points out that his
continued residence in a high security facility means he continues to mix with high security prisoners, and says Corrections has breached his legitimate expectation that this would not occur.
[35] I do not consider this ground can succeed because the policy documents are not cast in mandatory terms. They understandably recognise the desirability of keeping lower security prisoners separate from those having a higher security classification. They do not state, however, that this must be the case and it would no doubt be impracticable for that to be enforced. Furthermore, Mr Smith could not realistically have legitimately expected he would be kept separate from high security prisoners whilst he remained in a high security facility. The real issue in this context is whether Corrections acted illegally and in breach of its statutory obligations by continuing to accommodate him in a high security facility and subject to a high security regime after his security classification was reduced to low-medium in December 2016.
[36] For that reason I propose only to consider Mr Smith’s primary ground of review based on illegality.
Has Corrections acted illegally and in breach of its statutory obligations in making its decisions as to how Mr Smith is to be housed and managed?
[37] Three decisions need to be considered under this head. The first is the decision to keep Mr Smith in maximum security but subject to a high security regime following his re-classification as a high security prisoner on 27 June 2016. The second is a decision to keep him in the same facility and regime following his re-classification as a low-medium prisoner on 23 December 2016. The third is the decision to keep him in a high security facility subject to a high security regime after his transfer to Auckland West on 17 August 2017.
The decision to keep Mr Smith in a maximum security facility after he was re-classified as a high security prisoner on 27 June 2016
[38] Mr Smith deposes that within days of being re-classified as a high security prisoner he was moved from C Block to A Block in East Division. C Block operates a maximum security regime whereas A Block operates a high security regime.
Mr Smith therefore accepts that he was subject to the correct regime after his re- classification as a high security prisoner but says he was wrongly kept in a maximum security facility.
[39] Mr Sherlock’s affidavits do not articulate why Corrections decided to keep Mr Smith in a maximum security facility after he was re-classified as a high security prisoner on 27 June 2016. It may be that he considered Mr Smith needed to remain within the maximum security area of the prison for a period to prepare for reintroduction to a lower security environment. It is clear, however, that Corrections knew of its obligation to give effect to reg 44(2) because Mr Smith was immediately moved to a block that operated a high security management regime. Corrections therefore complied with that aspect of its obligations under reg 44(2).
[40] Furthermore, the obligations imposed by reg 44(2) are not absolute in the sense that Corrections is required to give full effect to them the moment a prisoner is re- classified. That would be impracticable and would also ignore the fact that Corrections is obliged to ensure the safety of both the prisoner and other persons in making decisions regarding the housing and management of prisoners. Reg 44(2) recognises the importance of practical considerations because the requirements it imposes are expressly subject to the availability of accommodation and other resources. I would include within the term “resources” the ability to properly plan the transfer of a prisoner from one facility to another in a manner consistent with the requirement to protect the safety and wellbeing of both the prisoner and others. Mr Sherlock deposes that Mr Smith is a prisoner with high and complex needs, and decisions about his status are obviously only made after careful consideration is given to the ramifications of those decisions.
[41] Mr Smith was also actively endeavouring between August and December 2016 to obtain a transfer to Manawatu Prison so he could be closer to his family and friends. Corrections declined this request and an appeal against that decision was dismissed. Mr Smith then filed an application for judicial review of the decision to decline his request for transfer. He discontinued this after he was re-classified as a low-medium security prisoner on 23 December 2016. Corrections may well have considered it was not worth taking any further steps to transfer Mr Smith pending resolution of that issue.
[42] For these reasons I do not consider Corrections was in breach of its obligations under reg 44(2) when it required Mr Smith to remain in a maximum security facility but subject to a high security regime after 27 June 2016.
The decision to keep Mr Smith in the same facility and subject to the same regime between his re-classification as a low-medium security prisoners on 23 December
2016 and his transfer to Auckland West on 17 August 2017
[43] Corrections’ awareness of its obligations under reg 44(2) after Mr Smith had been re-classified as a low-medium security prisoner on 23 December 2016 is demonstrated by the fact that Mr Sherlock acknowledges he discussed the prospect of transfer to Auckland West with Mr Smith very shortly after his re-classification to low- medium. As I have already observed, Mr Sherlock says he told Mr Smith that he would be transferred to Auckland West but this would not occur within the next six months because several issues needed to be worked through.
[44] Mr Sherlock also says that Mr Smith is particularly at risk of violence from other prisoners, and this needed to be factored into the equation. He could be supervised more closely within the regime at Auckland East than would be the case in Auckland West. The former provides three corrections officers to monitor and supervise 12 prisoners whereas the corresponding ratio in Auckland West is three officers for 48 prisoners.
[45] In addition, Mr Sherlock says Mr Smith had demonstrated an ability to manipulate corrections staff. This had been a factor in his escape from custody, and Mr Sherlock wanted to minimise the possibility of it occurring again once he was transferred to Auckland West. For that reason Mr Sherlock says he considered it appropriate for Mr Smith to remain in maximum security whilst the move to Auckland West was carefully considered.
[46] Mr Sherlock also says that although Mr Smith remained in a maximum security unit, there were no maximum security prisoners housed in that unit. Prisoners were allowed contact visits and were also allowed out of their cells for the same periods as would be the case for high security prisoners.
[47] Mr Sherlock has not said how long it would normally take for a prisoner to gain transfer from one facility to another after being assigned a lower security classification. Although perhaps longer than one might expect to be the case, I do not consider that the delay between 23 December 2016 and 17 August 2017 was such that it calls into question the legality of Corrections’ decision making process. In particular, I do not consider it suggests Corrections was failing to have regard to its obligations under reg 44(2) because Mr Sherlock had told Mr Smith from the outset that he would be transferred to Auckland West. The matters Mr Sherlock was taking into account when considering that issue were clearly relevant to the overriding purpose of providing for Mr Smith’s safety.
[48] Mr Smith has not established that Corrections failed to give effect to its obligations under reg 44(2) during this period.
The decision to keep Mr Smith in a high security facility subject to a high security regime after he was transferred to Auckland West on 17 August 2017
[49] Mr Smith was moved to Unit 3 in Auckland West on 17 August 2017. Unit 3 is a segregation unit, meaning that prisoners in the unit are kept apart from mainstream prisoners. Mr Smith has been in segregation at his own request since his return to New Zealand in November 2014.
[50] In his first affidavit Mr Sherlock explained that it is not always possible for Corrections to house and manage prisoners strictly in accordance with their security classifications. He gave the reasons for this as follows:
… Low-medium and below prisoners will usually be moved to one of the satellite units at the major prisons or to one of the lower security facilities, because their rehabilitation will generally be assisted by being in a lower security environment. Also, with pressure on the prison muster, high security beds need to be made available for those prisoners who must be housed there, but it would be impossible to have every prisoner housed in a facility that exactly corresponded with their security classification, for three reasons:
9.1Regard must be had to the risk posed to the prisoner. Prisoners can be at greater risk of violence from other prisoners because of their offence type, gang affiliation, or personalised grievances. At each level of security, the prison can accommodate prisoners who wish to be segregated from the mainstream prison population but even when that is done, a prisoner may need a greater degree of supervision than placement in a lower security facility would allow.
9.2The composition of the prison muster is constantly changing but the construction and layout of the buildings cannot change. Prisoners are released, new prisoners come into prison, and thousands of security classification reviews are taking place each year.
9.3The rehabilitation needs of the individual prisoner must be taken into account. For example, a prisoner whose classification reduces from high to lower medium may be able to be housed in a low security unit at another prison but this could reduce their family visits, or disrupt an environment that is helpful to them.
[51] Mr Sherlock then went on to set out Mr Smith’s future prospects:
17.As Mr Smith is low-medium and while he retains that security classification or lower, he could be moved to Unit 9, one of the 60 bed satellite units at Auckland Prison. The unit is currently full but as there is constant movement of prisoners, spaces will open up regularly and he could be accommodated in that unit if the decision was made to move him there.
18. In the 60 bed units the unlock hours are longer at 9 am to 8:30 pm.
The staff ratio is lesser with 3 staff to 60 prisoners. The unit has its own yard which the prisoners have access to when they are unlocked.
There are similar low security units in the other prisons in our region, Nga Wha (Northland), Wiri (South Auckland) and Spring Hill.
19.The decision whether to move Mr Smith within Auckland prison rests with Prison Director Andy Langley. While I am Acting Director it rests with me. As Mr Smith has been identified as a prisoner with high and complex needs the Regional Commissioner Jeanette Burns and the National HCN [High and Complex Needs] panel, an advisory group of senior Corrections Department officials, will provide advice to the prison director on actions concerning Mr Smith. Within Auckland prison I am one of the persons likely to be consulted on any decision to move Mr Smith. Before he could be moved to any prison other than Auckland prison, it would require a favourable decision by the prison director of that prison.
20.I am aware that there are no current plans to move Mr Smith from where he is. Although Mr Smith has a low medium security classification, he remains a prisoner who requires close supervision. He is particularly at risk of violence by other prisoners and where the ratio of staff to prisoners is one to twenty and the prisoners are unlocked from 7 am to 8.30 pm effective surveillance of Mr Smith’s interaction with 59 other prisoners would be much harder than in Unit
3 where the ratio is one staff member to 16 prisoners and the unlock hours are from 8 am to 5 pm. Mr Smith has other prisoners in Unit 3
he is familiar with and who do not appear to have any problem with him.
[52] Mr Smith contends that this explanation does not make sense because his own experience has been that the risk of violence between prisoners is greater in higher
security facilities than in low-medium and below. Mr Smith therefore considers that a transfer to a low-medium facility in accordance with his current security classification would alleviate Mr Sherlock’s concerns. He cannot see why he must remain in a high security environment for his own safety.
[53] The only explanation Mr Sherlock gives for Mr Smith’s continued residence in a high security environment is the requirement that he be closely supervised to keep him free from the risk of violence by other prisoners. Mr Sherlock does not explain why Mr Smith is currently at risk of violence by other prisoners. It may be because of his original crimes or it may be a product of his escape to Brazil. Either way, however, it is difficult to see why that risk could not be managed adequately by transferring him to Unit 9, the segregated low-medium unit at Auckland Prison.
Mr Smith clearly believes he would be safe in that environment notwithstanding the resulting increase in the ratio between prisoners and staff.
[54] I consider it to be a matter of concern that there are currently no plans to transfer Mr Smith to a low-medium security unit as reg 44(2) requires. I am conscious, however, that Mr Smith has only been housed in Auckland West for approximately four months. That may not have given Corrections sufficient time to formulate a plan to move him to an environment commensurate both with his current security status and his need for protection from other prisoners. For that reason I am not prepared at this stage to make a declaration that Corrections is failing to comply with its obligations under reg 44(2).
[55] As time goes on and Mr Smith remains in his current accommodation, however, it becomes easier to infer Corrections has decided to keep him where he is on a long term basis to punish him for past misdemeanours. Corrections may view these as including not only Mr Smith’s escape but also the litigation he has instituted against Corrections in the last twelve months. If Corrections was to approach the matter in that way it would obviously not be giving effect to the obligations imposed by reg 44(2).
[56] I am also conscious that Mr Smith’s security classification is due to be reviewed again later this month. This will provide Corrections with a further
opportunity to review Mr Smith’s housing and management regime. If he retains his low-medium classification Corrections will need to decide those issues in a manner that demonstrates it is endeavouring to give effect to the requirements of reg 44(2).
Result
[57] At this stage I make no declaration that Corrections is in breach of its obligations under reg 44(2). Mr Smith has leave to renew his application for a declaration if he retains his current security classification at the forthcoming review and Corrections does not adequately explain how it is endeavouring to give effect to reg 44(2) in deciding how Mr Smith is to be housed and managed in the future.
[58] The claim for monetary compensation remains outstanding but at this stage appears unable to succeed in respect of events up to the date of the hearing. Whether and to what extent Mr Smith wishes to pursue that aspect of his claim will be the subject of a telephone conference before an Associate Judge on the first available date after 1 March 2018.
Costs
[59] I reserve costs at this point. They will be determined once the final outcome of the proceeding is known.
Lang J
Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington
1
1